dtuuri
Final Approach
That's Cessna's standard--it takes at least 'average technique' to be safe in a 15 kt crosswind.
I have an idea. Why don't YOU become an examiner, then come back here and lecture me about how it's done?
dtuuri
Question for the DPEs...
- Thread starter Henning
- Start date
I have an idea. Why don't YOU become an examiner, then come back here and lecture me about how it's done?
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
Ok, you're my applicant for today and you're flying a Cessna 170. What's the value we're going to use during the test?
dtuuri
Alexb2000
En-Route
How about the demonstrated crosswind if there is one otherwise the value set by the instructor experienced in type? In the 170's case you would ask what I have been taught as a limit and could expect me to perform to that limit. All of our flying limits are based initially on something like the POH or our instructors recommendations until we gain enough experience to better define them for ourselves.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Your CFI isn't taking the test, so his/her opinion matters not. Cessna doesn't list a value for the C-170, so it's up to you--whatever you decide, ala Task A, on crosswind takeoffs.
If you decide to takeoff, and if circumstances including realistic scenarios put the wind on your side instead of your nose, then I'd expect you to be able to control the aircraft within its certified limitations. That's what it means to "be the master of the aircraft" and is an over-arching regulatory requirement, not a catch-all PTS phrase designed to fail an applicant without purpose. The standards were developed in an attempt to quantify, to the extent possible, what those words mean, rather than accept every performance that doesn't result in bent metal from exceeding the aircraft's limitations.
If you operate within the limitations, use good judgment (flying 40 miles with smoke isn't) and are doing a reasonable job under the circumstances--you'll pass the task. The test is a realistic demonstration of your ability to control your airplane throughout its operational envelope: stalls, steep turns, emergencies, short fields, etc. If the plane is certified to do it, you should be able to demonstrate it to the extent of the certificate applied for.
dtuuri
Alexb2000
En-Route
Fire in the cabin is an emergency, so more of an ADM test than a demonstration of skill IMO. I'll leave that one aside.
Even in your last response you reference certified limitations so now I'm really confused. If something like a 170 doesn't have a published limitation and you place no confidence in the CFI, then what is a reasonable crosswind for the student to say, "No" and still be the master of the aircraft? 5 knots? 10? See where I'm going, it's totally subjective, which was my original point.
dtuuri
Final Approach
It isn't a 'confidence in the CFI' question. Airplanes were built without listing a demonstrated crosswind component. Examiners don't have to know anything about the particular type of plane you show up with, so the PTS allows for you to be the decision maker when there isn't an available standard. There is no requirement to demonstrate crosswind technique if there is no crosswind, only that the technique be proper when there is. It's a fact that the stronger the wind the more revealing of fundamental flaws in technique there will be. Choosing to exceed published limits unnecessarily is disqualifying, but a demonstrated crosswind component isn't normally a limiting factor, so all you need to pass is to use proper technique. If you have proper technique for 10 kts, the same works for 15 or 35 (within the known limits)--you just need a lot more of it.
dtuuri
TMetzinger
Final Approach
So, a student flies a pattern, then uses proper crosswind technique on final, and at about 500' says "Nope, the winds are too strong for my comfort, we're going to XXX where the runway is better aligned, and we'll come back when the wind dies down a bit", and climbs away and starts heading for the other airport. Does he pass?
Since there's no such thing as a crosswind limitation, does it matter what the actual crosswind is?
Since there's no such thing as a crosswind limitation, does it matter what the actual crosswind is?
Alexb2000
En-Route
It isn't a 'confidence in the CFI' question. Airplanes were built without listing a demonstrated crosswind component. Examiners don't have to know anything about the particular type of plane you show up with, so the PTS allows for you to be the decision maker when there isn't an available standard. There is no requirement to demonstrate crosswind technique if there is no crosswind, only that the technique be proper when there is. It's a fact that the stronger the wind the more revealing of fundamental flaws in technique there will be. Choosing to exceed published limits unnecessarily is disqualifying, but a demonstrated crosswind component isn't normally a limiting factor, so all you need to pass is to use proper technique. If you have proper technique for 10 kts, the same works for 15 or 35 (within the known limits)--you just need a lot more of it.
dtuuri
Not to be argumentative, but I would think a PPL candidate even trying a 35 knot crosswind (no published limit) would be a fail even if they didn't bend the airplane. I guess that's why I'm not a DPE.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Look at it this way. Would you endorse a student for a PP check ride if they couldn't execute a cross wind landing in 15 knots wind?
dtuuri
Final Approach
I don't know. I wasn't there.
If it were me flying, 500' AGL would be way too early unless other factors like severe downdrafts existed. I'd look forward to what the conditions are at ground level, not at the height of the anemometer and I'd go around if I ran out of rudder or couldn't make a nicely controlled landing somewhere in the normal touchdown zone. I'd use power to buy time in that zone too. Wouldn't you?
No, according to the PTS, there needn't be one at all. It's a 'practical' test, a real-life demonstration in real time with realistic scenarios.
Well, I was just making a point. If the wind were 35 kts across the runway, I doubt if the examiner would bother coming out to the airport.Not to be argumentative, but I would think a PPL candidate even trying a 35 knot crosswind (no published limit) would be a fail even if they didn't bend the airplane. I guess that's why I'm not a DPE.
dtuuri
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
Incorrect. The examiner will show up if the applicant didn't call them to reschedule. (Sure they might make a phone call and say something like, "Just checking o see if we are still on for today", without giving away that they're looking for the judgement of the applicant and whether or not they've briefed the weather...)
Plus, most rides start with an oral. They're going to show up.
My ride day started with 20 knot winds forecast to go higher. I mentioned the forecast right at the beginning of the oral to show I had situational awareness even though I had an oral to think about.
The entire time the examiner is evaluating if you have the big picture. They'll show up.
I think you're making things up that don't happen to try to argue your point. I'm staying out of it other than to point out that this one is most certainly, false.
Yes an examiner CAN call off a ride for a safety issue, but safely on the ground, the food ones are going to hand the applicant some rope and see what they do. They will watch and examine. Examiner.
Even more evidence, after I Discontinued due to winds, my examiner not only said, "I like your decision," he also said, "I'll be here for a while, my Private applicant after you later today hasn't called to cancel yet. We will see what he does..."
TMetzinger
Final Approach
Well it might be possible that the student and I never flew in winds that created a 15 knot crosswind (crosswind, not total wind). So sure, I'd endorse him, if he'd handled the crosswinds in which we DID fly correctly.
The thing that keeps this thread going is that we have a former DPE saying (paraphrasing here) that he'd bust a student for not attempting a crosswind landing, or aborting it too early, even if proper crosswind technique was in use, if the DPE disagreed with the student's judgement about how much crosswind is "too much". And at the same time the DPE admits that there's no published number for "too much" crosswind in the PTS or the aircraft limitations.
To me that sounds like Justice Potter saying "It's hard to define but I know it when I see it". A lot of people may think that's not a fair standard, or that someone with very conservative risk management practices shouldn't get busted for it on a checkride.
Personally, I don't have a problem with it. CFIs and DPEs are expected to use judgement and "know it when they see it", at least for the performance they actually see. There's plenty of gray in the world, and the folks who evaluate pilots, especially CFIs, are expected to do their best in coping with it. I believe that DPEs are designated in part on their demonstrated ability to "know it when they see it" as successful instructors.
But again, I'm a noob CFI.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Most applicants need to fly to an appointment, not drive, so an examiner not wasting a trip out to the airport under such adverse wind conditions for a private pilot flight test seems to me to be a reasonable judgment call. YMMV.
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
Clarification is called for here. The only outcome options available for an examiner for a flight test are: 1) a temporary license, 2) a disapproval notice, or 3) a letter of discontinuance.
One and three are aren't possible if the test wasn't completed and the reason wasn't unforecasted wind, mechanical failure, etc., in my reasoning.
If a crosswind exists, crosswind takeoffs and landings MUST be demonstrated. If the airplane is known to be capable of handling it, using only average technique, why would anybody not expect an applicant for a pilot's license to be able to perform the required task? Do they extend that thought process to, say, landing with full flaps? Or performing forward slips? What about stalls? Short field takeoffs?
Examiners are encouraged to test to the highest 'correlation level' possible (it's in the PTS). A crosswind more than the applicant has ever experienced, but easily within the capability of the airplane seems to THIS former DPE to be just what the Administrator ordered.
dtuuri
denverpilot
Tied Down
Really? Is that quantifiable?
Reason I ask is not to debate, but because there are at least two local DPEs and two who will fly to YOU around here.
I flew with a solo endorsement to my first DPE ride, but I lived in the outskirts of town then and there wasn't a DPE up there then.
Nowadays you can't throw a rock without hitting a DPE who'd meet you at KAPA. There are others who'd drive to KBJC, KFTG, and KEIK... And the one who lives at KEIK who had the mid-air this year also usually handled KFNL and KLMO and would fly over to meet applicants.
I think I had the only DPE (he was KGXY based) who wouldn't do house calls so to speak. Long long ago. He retired.
Guess you don't realize the DPE showing up at your virtual doorstep is a local thing until someone points it out.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
And where is the capability of the airplane defined?
In the mind of the DPE, right?
Or are you saying that the max demonstrated crosswind is the criteria you use?
If you are saying that you'd bust someone for not attempting a crosswind landing when the crosswind factor is less than or equal to the max demonstrated crosswind, that gives me a different impression (and one I like better), because you've got a reference the pilot should know for his airplane.
Using the max demonstrated crosswind as a performance requirement is at least a defined number for "too much wind", even though it's not a limitation.
So let me give you six scenarios, and what I THINK your response would be, to see if I'm understanding you correctly. Let's set max demonstrated crosswind to 12 knots.
1. Crosswind component is 8 knots. Student refuses to attempt the landing. Result - Failure
2. Crosswind component is 8 knots. Student attempts the landing, performs it properly. Result - Pass
3. Crosswind component is 8 knots. Student attempts the landing, does not perform it properly (excessive drift). Result - Fail.
Let's say the wind has kicked up during the ride, more than forecast... and now:
4. Crosswind component is 15 knots. Student elects to divert to a runway where crosswind component is less than 12 knots. Result - Pass.
5. Crosswind component is 15 knots. Student attempts the landing, performs it properly. Result - Pass
6. Crosswind component is 15 knots. Student attempts the landing, does not perform it properly (excessive drift). Result - Fail
I think the real issue is how "too much" wind is defined.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Did you miss the attachments in Post #79? For the OP's C-172, it's in the amplified section of the POH. In the case of a Cessna 170, as per Task A, Area IV of the PTS, it's whatever the applicant informs the examiner. I would add that should be established before beginning the test.
I'll go with that, as far as you laid it out. Now it's my turn. You can be the examiner. In case #4, you know from personal experience the airplane in question is well able to handle 15 kts of crosswind despite the demonstrated limitation. But the only other option for a runway with a qualifying crosswind component for the task is some 40 miles hither. You have another applicant scheduled in an hour. After that, you've got to pick up the kids at school. By rule, you aren't PIC and besides that it isn't your airplane. Now what?
I know what I'd do, and have stated it previously. I think anybody who's actually done some flight examining would do something similar, but I'm willing to hear from them if not. That's what makes life interesting.
dtuuri
TMetzinger
Final Approach
If the issue is that the applicant won't land back at the home base, because of the crosswind, then in his mind it's the same as if the runway was closed. As an examiner, I'd either let him take me to wherever he'd put it down in real life, and then pass him, or I'd issue a discontinuance and land the airplane myself.
What I wouldn't do is bust an applicant who made a good decision based on a pre-defined number.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Order 8900.2, which did not exist during my tenure as a DPE, differs from Order 8900.1 with respect to Letters of Discontinuance. You may be able to call it a 'personal disagreement before a disqualifying performance'. But with a smoke in the cockpit scenario underway I don't see how it can be considered in light of 'unforecasted weather'. Wind happens. Sooner or later the applicant will need to deal with it and you aren't going to convince me the applicant, in real life, is going to fly 40 miles out of the way because of an extra 3 kts of crosswind.
Actually, if the applicant is smart, s/he will gladly take the challenge. Just three knots above demonstrated--probably within limits at ground level anyway, but because it can be considered over and above the call of duty, most examiners would consider it a free strike. What is there to lose? Better than the cost of repositioning the plane 80 miles, taxi expense, meals, etc.
dtuuri
TMetzinger
Final Approach
Nobody said anything about smoke in the cockpit in my scenarios. This question centers around "how much crosswind is too much for someone to attempt to land in, and still not bust a checkride?"
If you tell me I've got smoke in the cockpit, then I'd tell you that we'd attempt the crosswind landing because it's better to land and maybe groundloop or go off the runway than it is to be up in the air on fire.
But if you bust me for a landing that doesn't meet PTS in that scenario, after we'd discussed that the crosswind was "too much" for a landing attempt in normal circumstances, but that in an emergency was the best of the bad choices available, I'd feel cheated and complain to the FSDO.
If you tell me I've got smoke in the cockpit, then I'd tell you that we'd attempt the crosswind landing because it's better to land and maybe groundloop or go off the runway than it is to be up in the air on fire.
But if you bust me for a landing that doesn't meet PTS in that scenario, after we'd discussed that the crosswind was "too much" for a landing attempt in normal circumstances, but that in an emergency was the best of the bad choices available, I'd feel cheated and complain to the FSDO.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Right, it's what I said I would do if some test-shy applicant tried to fly me 40 miles away for three lousy knots.
Now we're talking!
Like I said, examiners aren't primed to do such a thing. On the other hand, if the applicants used the same crappy technique as this guy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw-aUVa3a0U&feature=player_embedded
they don't deserve the privilege of carrying passengers, no matter the wind, and they're welcome to take the pink slip to the FSDO and demonstrate their competence for a free, unbiased opinion there.
dtuuri
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
FWIW I once handled a complaint where the applicant complained he felt the checkride given by the DPE was too easy.........
That's awesome. Some people will complain if hung with a used rope.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Would you complain if the examiner said the ATIS was broken and to disregard it in the test scenario? Can you land without an ATIS? Without a windsock?
Some people will complain if hung with a used rope.
Just askin'..
dtuuri
saracelica
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,817
- Display Name
Display name:
saracelica
Yes to both. My instructor made me land with no new ATIS and a "broken" Altimeter. I can't ever see the wind sock when I'm coming into land so that was technically broken too.Would you complain if the examiner said the ATIS was broken and to disregard it in the test scenario? Can you land without an ATIS? Without a windsock?
Just askin'..
dtuuri
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
dtuuri
Final Approach
Yes to both. My instructor made me land with no new ATIS and a "broken" Altimeter. I can't ever see the wind sock when I'm coming into land so that was technically broken too.
How would you be able to tell the crosswind was 15 and not an acceptable 12 kts? (Rhetorical question.)You sound like my kind of girl and your instructor's my kind of CFI. I know a pilot who totaled a really nice C-182 aborting a takeoff because he left the pitot cover in place. Didn't have airspeed, chopped the throttle and crashed in a ravine straight ahead off the end. Just because sensitive instruments are available for measuring things doesn't mean we really need them if we're truly "masters" of our aircraft. Good luck to you!
dtuuri
saracelica
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,817
- Display Name
Display name:
saracelica
With my CFI in the right seat next to me I'm almost fearless. He wouldn't ever let me wreck the club airplane so I went for it and it worked out. On the ground he said "See you don't need that pesky altimeter." I thought for a moment and asked "what was the point of that exercise?" he said "Some airports don't have ATIS or a windsock - you're spoiled at this non towered airport so I wanted to show you what to do if you run into that somewhere" I don't think I even look at the altimeter after turning base at my home airport. I usually at least try the landing when I'm out and about.
I usually at least try the landing when I'm out and about.
darrell
Pre-takeoff checklist
One might also justifiably choose to rent from a non-nanny FBO.
It's the Navy Flying Club at NAS Jax. I'm pretty sure the FBO's in the area do not have the same limitations in their policy. The Flying Club at NAS Jax seems to have gone downhill ever since it was placed under the MWR "umbrella" instead of being (pre-9/11) its own entity.
EDIT: I should add that similarly-equipped aircraft at other FBOs are at least $30 more per hour, and the Navy Club will reimburse me around $3 per gallon if I buy fuel from another field (gas is free at the NAS).
Last edited:
ChrisK
En-Route
This is an interesting topic. I MIGHT glance at the altimeter occasionally on descent and / or final, but I usually don't care what it says once I'm abeam the numbers. The rest of the approach is 100% visual for me, and I apply what control inputs are necessary to put me on the correct glide slope (indicated or otherwise).I don't think I even look at the altimeter after turning base at my home airport.
While prepping for my checkride, this thread has been quite helpful. I busted an emergency descent procedure the other day because the winds (20-30 knots aloft and 8G13 becoming 12G17 on the ground - quite a bit for my 152 and experience level) totally threw me for a loop. My instructor's point is that whatever the winds may be, I have to analyze, react, refine, and compensate. Sure, I didn't do a good job that day, but I think given another crack at it I'd do a lot better.
Captain
Final Approach
If you're on final in VMC say 5 miles out what could the altimiter possibly tell you all the way to the hangar? I could see cross checking distance vs altitude if your new...but really, might as well include your watch in your scan to cross check speed.
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
How did the ATIS break? Did the controller recording it have a heart attack or something?Would you complain if the examiner said the ATIS was broken and to disregard it in the test scenario? Can you land without an ATIS? Without a windsock?
Just askin'..
dtuuri
I think you mean AWOS/ASOS.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Ya got me!How did the ATIS break? Did the controller recording it have a heart attack or something?
I think you mean AWOS/ASOS.
dtuuri
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
How did the ATIS break? Did the controller recording it have a heart attack or something?
I think you mean AWOS/ASOS.
VERY easily. Land at a towered airport after the tower closes, and you won't have a functional ATIS (most likely, it will transmit, but the information will be old). Some airports have AWOS or ASOS as well. Not even close to all of them. Right after the tower opens, you may or may not have an up to date ATIS. It may be from the previous evening.
The transmitter could be down as well.
It's not really breakage, but a very likely scenario is that Approach or Center held onto you for too long in busy airspace with lots of traffic advisories, and handed you off to Tower 5 miles out. No time....so you call into Tower with "negative ATIS." This happens all the time. Remember, aviate, navigate, communicate --in that order. ATIS is hardly more important than collision avoidance.
Last edited:
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
The wind vector display down on the G1000!
MAKG1
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,411
- Location
- California central coast
- Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
The wind vector display down on the G1000!
Your G1000 can tell you the winds across the runway from pattern altitude or further? They can be VERY different. And it's not always just stronger winds at pattern altitude.
OTOH, where does the PTS state the criteria for passing or failing the student on decision making criteria? After all, isn't basic ADM also a criteria? You can fail at ADM by being overly conservative to the point of being unsafe as well.
Traket92X
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 161
- Display Name
Display name:
Traket
How did the ATIS break? Did the controller recording it have a heart attack or something?
I think you mean AWOS/ASOS.
I've been into KLBB a few times where the controller felt the need to complete the recording with a single breath. That's about the equivalent of "broken"
It means you're not ready to be PIC.
My point exactly, PP is not a 'license to learn', that's a load of crap. the PP is is a certificate that states you have mastered control of the aircraft. If one judges that the conditions exceed the aircrafts ability, that is mastery. If one judges that the conditions exceed the pilots abilities, that is showing a failure of mastery of the aircraft which the way I read the PTSis a fail.